Why Mutilate The Nose Specifically?

[caz]

Can you state unequivocally that Kate wasnt lured by the man into the square with a promise of something she wanted...or that the man wearing the sailors knotted scarf was the same man she intended to turn in?

No, Mike. Why would I want to do that? I merely observed:

Eddowes was a tiny little thing, but she went willingly into that dark corner with her killer.

So of course she could have been lured with a promise (of money perhaps, since she was penniless - although it wouldn't need to have been in return for anything of a sexual nature, before you start assuming again) but that would still be going 'willingly', just as I observed.

I went on to ask how she planned to defend herself if she knew he was the Whitechapel fiend. Obviously if she had no intention of turning in sailorman and had no idea he meant her harm, my question wouldn't apply.

Assuming is fine for discussion, but not so good if presented as fact. Assuming Kate, Liz and Mary were soliciting when they meet their killer(s) is valid as a topic for discussion, but when presented as the most probable or likely scenario to people who want the actual truth... not merely the truth as perceived by the individual poster..then it becomes misleading.

Again, where in my post did I assume anything at all about these women 'soliciting'? I repeat: Eddowes was a tiny little thing, but she went willingly into that dark corner with her killer. At least there is no indication that she went under threat or was taken by force. I reached no conclusions about why she went.

Serial killers I believe are by definition guilty of more than 3 murders, yes?... and since we cant even link 1 canonical death to 1 person, or prove that only 1 person was responsible for any of the deaths, I would agree with the philosophy that almost all discussion of serial killings on this site should be limited to General Discussion. Perhaps when we have linked 2 murders with one person we might speculate some more on that train of thought, but its unwarranted at this point when discussing who killed any of the five women dubbed the Canonical Group.

So now you have doubts that even Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same hand? If that's the case, your train of thought is likely to be stuck in a dark tunnel without a buffet car for a long time to come.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

I think that GM was correct, and the term was overused in this case errata, with Mary Kelly you could make that statement without any pushback, but Kate had her nose almost cut off and had chevron type markings under her eyes. Thats mutilation, not obliteration.

Cheers

I'm a social sciences major. Obliteration always means significance, not totality. Obliteration of Akhenaten's name in history, obliteration of Catholicism in England, obliteration of synagogues in Nazi Germany... none resulted in absolute removal, just removing significant parts.

Total removal is eradication, extinction, or extinguishing (languages extinguish,but then become extinct. Which is odd).

Though colloquially I would use destroy, erase, or ravage.

I'm not making any arguments for how someone else uses the word obliterate. Sure it may be overused if someone is talking about the effect of the mutilations, though I think it's valid in a way. I use the word they way I was taught to use the word. Just like Historians almost never use the word decimate because it's always used wrong, despite the wrong usage now being accepted usage.

I don't think the mutilations obliterated her face in the sense that it was totally destroyed. I think the effect of the mutilations and all the blood on her face would obliterate her face in that it rendered her unrecognizable. And I think it was done to destroy the significance of her features or face to the killer. The word obliterate is the only one off the top of my head that means that. So if I have one word that means what I need it to mean, or I have about two dozen words describing what I mean, I'm going to pick the word. Maybe it makes me a lazy writer. But for the life of me I cannot imagine why it is any kind of a problem to use a word correctly on this board. It's not a cover, it's not backpedaling. It's using a word correctly.

If you don't want me to use the word anymore than I wont. I'm not attached. I certainly don't want to upset anyone. But it does mean I will be auditioning words that mean the destruction of significance in a widespread but not global way. So give me some appropriate words and I will happily use them.